JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. The decision in this reference shall govern disposal of other five connected sales tax references bearing M.C.C. Nos. 529 of 1998, 530 of 1998, 532 of 1998, 535 of 1998 and 536 of 1998 as all these references relate to same dealer (respondent herein) and secondly in all these six references, common questions of law is involved which is referred for answer to this Court by the Tribunal at the instance of State. However, in order to appreciate as to how the questions arose for determination which led to making of this reference, it is necessary to state the facts which lie in a very narrow compass. 2. The respondent is a dealer as defined Under Section 2(d) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter called "the Act") as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of sales of submersible pump sets, their spare parts and accessories. There is a wire known as PVC covered insulated winding wire (hereinafter referred to as "wire") which is used in making the submersible pump. According to respondent, this wire is essentially a spare part of submersible pump as defined in entry 12 of Part IV of Schedule II of the Act and was, therefore, exigible to tax at the rates applicable to entry 12, i.e., 3 per cent. The respondent was accordingly making the payment of sales tax on this wire treating it to be a spare part of submersible pump. The assessing authorities under the Act accepted the same and allowed the respondent to pay tax as per rates applicable to entry 12 referred supra. However, since there were some doubts as to what rate should be applicable to this wire namely whether it be treated as spare part of submersible pump as per entry 12 or it be treated as electrical goods as defined under entry 15 (i.e., residuary entry) of Part III of Schedule II of the Act, the respondent invoked the jurisdiction of Commissioner Under Section 42-B ibid and requested the Commissioner to decide as to whether wire in question falls in entry 12 of Part IV of Schedule II or in entry 15 of Part III of Schedule II. The learned Commissioner of Sales Tax by its order dated August 3, 1989 decided the matter against the respondent. The learned Commissioner of Sales Tax by its order dated August 3, 1989 decided the matter against the respondent. He held that the wire in question is exigible to sales tax as electric goods falling in entry 15 of Part III of Schedule II and not under entry 12 of Part IV of Schedule II as contended by the respondent. The decision of Commissioner is reported in (1989) 22 VKN 471. This led to re-opening of the concluded assessments of the respondent by the assessing authorities Under Section 19 ibid for the period in question, i.e., April 1, 1988 to March 31, 1989, April 1, 1989 to March 31, 1990 and April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991, both under the State as also Central Act. 3. As a consequence, revised assessment orders were passed under the State as also Central Act on the strength of the determination made by the Commissioner Under Section 42-B ibid by treating the wire in question as electrical goods under entry 15 of Part III of Schedule II. Penalty Under Section 43(1) was also imposed as a consequence of revised assessment orders. 4. The respondent then challenged the legality and propriety of these assessment orders as also the orders imposing penalty by filing first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, while upholding the orders of the assessing authorities dismissed the appeal. He was of the view that the wire in question was rightly treated as electrical goods so as to fall in entry 15 for payment of sales tax. He also upheld the orders imposing penalty Under Section 43(1) ibid. The respondent then carried the matter in second appeal to the Board of Revenue against the order of Deputy Commissioner passed in first appeal. The Board of Revenue by common order dated March 22, 1996 was pleased to set aside the order passed by Deputy Commissioner and allowed all the appeals filed by the respondent by passing common order. The learned member of Tribunal after examining the matter in detail held that the wire is in fact a spare part of submersible pump and hence falls in entry 12 of Part IV of Schedule II. It was accordingly held that rate of tax applicable to such wire would be the rate which is prescribed for entry 12, i.e., at the relevant time 3 per cent. It was accordingly held that rate of tax applicable to such wire would be the rate which is prescribed for entry 12, i.e., at the relevant time 3 per cent. Since the main issue was decided in favour of respondent, the orders imposing penalty were quashed as a consequential one. The State therefore, felt aggrieved by the aforementioned decision of the Board sought reference for answer, by this Court, By common order dated September 15, 1997, the Board was pleased to make a common reference Under Section 70(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act. Since, in the meantime, the earlier Act had been repealed as prayed by the State in all the cases arising out of different periods of assessment. By the order of reference at the instance of State, following common questions of law which arose out of the order of the Board have been referred for answer to this Court. "(1) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the PVC covered insulated winding wire was a spare part of the submersible pump sets, and thus chargeable under entry 12, Part IV, Schedule II ? (2) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty Under Section 43(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958." 5. We have heard Shri Bharat Chitale, learned Government Advocate for the State and Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned Senior Advocate with Shri C.B. Pancholia, for the respondent. 6. Shri Bharat Chitale, learned Government Advocate, assailing the view taken by the Board, contended that the wire in question has to be treated as electrical goods for payment of sales tax under entry 15 of Part III of Schedule II. According to him, the wire is nothing but just like an electrical wire in an ordinary commercial parlance and hence has to be treated like any electrical goods liable to be taxed at the rate of 12 per cent applicable to entry 15 at the relevant time. He urged that what is excluded from the purview of entry 15 is only those articles which are specified in entry 37 of Part III and since wire in question is not an article falling in entry 37 and, therefore, it squarely falls in entry 15. He urged that what is excluded from the purview of entry 15 is only those articles which are specified in entry 37 of Part III and since wire in question is not an article falling in entry 37 and, therefore, it squarely falls in entry 15. He maintained that in any event, the wire in question cannot be regarded as spare part of pump sets (as in this case submersible pump) so as to attract the applicability of entry 12 of Part IV of Schedule II, He also urged that there does not appear from the record of the proceedings that any finding about the use of wire in the pump is recorded so as to come to a definite conclusion about its actual use in the pump. In support of his submission, he mainly relied on the decisions reported in Sujan Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Delhi [1969] 24 STC 504 (Delhi) and in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Amar Radio Cabinet Works [1968] 22 STC 63 (Bom). 7. Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pancholia while supporting the view taken by the Board submitted that the wire in question is in fact a spare part of the submersible pump and hence it has to be taxed accordingly, i.e., under entry 12. He urged that plain reading of entry 12 manifestly suggests that intention of the Legislature has been to give benefit of levying tax at a lower rate on pumping sets as to whole and therefore, benefit of same lower rate of tax must be extended to all its spare parts and accessories. He urged that any other interpretation such as whether the wire is an electrical goods falling in entry 15 would defeat the very purpose because in such eventuality the pump set as such would be taxable at a lower rate whereas its spare parts would be levied at a higher rate. He maintained that it being a settled principle of law of interpretation that when there is a specific entry (entry 12) then the same will prevail over the general one (entry 15) would attract in this case. He maintained that it being a settled principle of law of interpretation that when there is a specific entry (entry 12) then the same will prevail over the general one (entry 15) would attract in this case. Elaborating his submission, he urged, that the wire in question cannot be classified in the category of general electrical goods because according to him, the wire is specially adapted for the use in the pump and is not capable of being used as an ordinary wire for any other purpose. He submitted that the use of such wire not being general but specific and vital one in submersible pump it makes wire, spare part of pump. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on decisions reported in Parekh Electric Wire Industries Put. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1992] 85 STC 464 (Guj) and in Triveni Conductors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax [1998] 109 STC 19 (MP). 8. Before we proceed to examine the issue it is necessary to refer to relevant entries of the Schedule. These entries are : Part IV /Entry 12 Tractors, tractor trailers, pumping sets 3 and spare parts and accessories thereof. Part III /Entry 15 All kinds of electrical goods excluding 12 articles specified in entry 37 of this Part. Plain reading of the entry 12 would show that 3 per cent of sales tax is leviable on tractors, tractor trailers, pumping sets as also on their spare parts and accessories. The words spare parts and accessories have not been defined under the Act. In such eventuality, one has to then resort to find out the meaning of the words by taking aid of either dictionary meaning or/and the popular and commercial meaning of the words which are subject-matter of interpretation. 9. Keeping the aforesaid principle in our mind, we have to decide whether wire would fall within entry 12 or entry 15 as urged by the learned counsel. 10. After having heard the arguments of learned counsel and having examined the relevant entries in the context of decided cases cited at the Bar, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Board holding that the wire would fall in entry 12 deserves to be upheld. 11. 10. After having heard the arguments of learned counsel and having examined the relevant entries in the context of decided cases cited at the Bar, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Board holding that the wire would fall in entry 12 deserves to be upheld. 11. The submission of learned counsel for the State that the wire should be treated as electrical goods so as to bring it in entry 15 has no substance. The other but main argument of Shri Chitale that wire cannot be treated as spare part of submersible pump also has no substance. The cases on which the counsel placed strong reliance to support his contentions in our considered view are distinguishable. In the case of Sujan Singh reported in [1969] 24 STC 504 (Delhi), the question was whether body of motor vehicle can be termed as a spare part under the Delhi sales tax law. The learned single Judge held that body of motor vehicle is not a spare part. The learned Judge, while interpreting the words spare part observed that spare part means an extra part of a vehicle or machine kept for use in emergency or replacement. The learned Judge further held that the very body of motor cannot be termed as spare part of motor vehicle. In the present case, we are concerned with the wire which is one of the essential parts of pump and can always be kept in use as a spare for emergency or replacement. Indeed the meaning explained by learned single Judge in Delhi case (Sujan Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner [1969] 24 STC 504] of words spare part aptly apply to the wire. Yet another case relied on by Shri Chitale reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Amar Radio Cabinet Works [1968] 22 STC 63 (Bom) has no application to the case with which we are dealing. That was a case where the question arose whether radio cabinets and loudspeaker cabinets are spare parts so as to tax them under the residuary entry 22 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The learned single Judge proceeded to hold that both these items, namely, radio cabinets and loudspeaker cabinets do not fall within the expression spare parts. That was a case where the question arose whether radio cabinets and loudspeaker cabinets are spare parts so as to tax them under the residuary entry 22 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The learned single Judge proceeded to hold that both these items, namely, radio cabinets and loudspeaker cabinets do not fall within the expression spare parts. The learned Judge while interpreting the meaning of the words "spare parts" held that the words spare part connotes a part which requires replacement in the ordinary course on account of wear and tear and as an extra item for use in an emergency. In our considered opinion even this case does not support the submission made by the counsel for the State. Yet another submission of the counsel for the State that no definite finding regarding the use of wire in pump is recorded for want of material filed by the respondent before the authorities has no substance as we find that this aspect was dealt with by the Board in para 6 of its order dated March 22, 1996 wherein the Board in clear terms after taking into account the factual material filed by the respondent before the lower authorities as also before the Board recorded a finding in favour of the respondent. 12. We are of the view that the question whether the wire in question falls in entry 15 of Part III of Schedule II cannot be examined by us for the simple reason that this question is not referred to us. It is a settled principle of law that the High Court cannot travel, while answering the reference, beyond the question referred in the order of reference by the Tribunal. Question No. 1 clearly suggests that we are only called upon to examine whether wire can be termed as spare part of submersible pump sets and thus chargeable to tax under entry 12, Part II of Schedule II. There is no reference for examination of the issue in the context of entry 15 as argued by Shri Chitale in support of his submissions. 13. We are however inclined to rely on the view taken by Gujarat High Court in a case reported in Parekh Electric Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1992] 85 STC 464. In this case, the question which arose for consideration is somewhat similar to the one which we are dealing in this case. 13. We are however inclined to rely on the view taken by Gujarat High Court in a case reported in Parekh Electric Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1992] 85 STC 464. In this case, the question which arose for consideration is somewhat similar to the one which we are dealing in this case. The question was whether super enamelled copper winding wire which is used in electric motor can be termed as spare part under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The division Bench of the Gujarat High Court speaking through G.T. Nanavati, J. (as his Lordship then was) held the winding wire to be the spare part of an electric motor. The learned single Judge after examining various cases having bearing over the issue answered the issue in this case as under : "Even if the test laid down in that decision is applied to this case, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that SECW wire is not a spare part of an electric motor. What is required to be noted is that in that case the court was concerned with copper wire which is an article of general use. For that reason, it was observed in that case that it did not have an identity of its own so as to be regarded as a component part of electrical goods. It was regarded merely as a necessary material or constituent used in the manufacture of electrical transformers. That is not the position of SECW wire. As pointed out earlier, SECW wire is specially adapted for use in electric motor. It is not capable of being used as an ordinary copper wire, or for any other purpose. The function of SECW wire in an electric motor is quite different inasmuch as it is used for the purpose of creating a magnetic field, as an integral but distinct part of electric motor. SECW wire has a distinct commercial identity as it is manufactured and sold as such and its use also is definite. It is not a general purpose article but is used ordinarily in electric motor for the purpose stated above. It is also regarded as a distinguishable part of stator which is an integral part of electric motor. SECW wire has a distinct commercial identity as it is manufactured and sold as such and its use also is definite. It is not a general purpose article but is used ordinarily in electric motor for the purpose stated above. It is also regarded as a distinguishable part of stator which is an integral part of electric motor. It being neither a raw material used in the manufacture or reparation of electric motor, nor an article of general use, it will have to be held that it is an article having a distinct commercial identity and is a distinguishable part of electric motor. For these reasons, it will have to be held that SECW wires sold by the assessees were spare part of an electric motor and sales thereof fell under entry 16(2) of Schedule II, Part A to the Act and not under entry 41 of that Schedule. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in taking a contrary view. We. therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessees and against the department. There shall be no order as to costs in these references." 14. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Gujarat High Court referred to supra. Similar is the view taken by one of us (Verma, J. ) in a case reported in [1998] 109 STC 19 (MP) (Triveni Conductors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax), wherein it is held that enamelled wire is a spare part to motors and machinery under the new M.P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. 15. Applying the aforesaid tests laid down in the cases referred above and a plain reading of entry 12 we have no hesitation in holding that the wire is a spare part of submersible pump and accordingly falls in entry 12 of Part IV of Schedule II. 16. We accordingly answer the question No. 1 in affirmative, i.e., in favour of respondent (dealer) and against the State (department). Since the question No. 1 is answered in favour of respondent, it is not necessary to answer the question No. 2 which has become academic and does not survive for answer on its merit. We therefore, decline to answer the question No. 2 for the reasons stated above.